Predestination, providence, and free will..

[brianbinsc]

Ephesians 1 lays out both truths without contradiction, namely, we are predestined, but we were sealed when we trusted. The truth of the doctrine of election, and of free will, are two rails on the same track. Both working together, and never in opposition to each other. It is all by GOD'S Grace, and we must accept or reject.

Our election is in CHRIST. Ephesians 1:6

We choose whether or not we will be in CHRIST. Ephesians 1:13

The HOLY SPIRIT prompts us to the realization of the finished work of CHRIST and opens the way for a decision. That decision is ours alone to make.

It is by the Grace of GOD the Father that the Salvation offer is there at all through CHRIST'S Finished work on the cross. It is also by GOD'S Grace that we respond positively to JESUS, however, that Grace is extended to everyone. Ephesians 2:8-10

This is the wonderful simplicity of the Gospel! So simple that a young child can accept in faith, so profound that scholars have debated it for centuries, and so "foolish" that the world rejects it.

At the end of the day, we benefit, and HE gets the Glory!
Praise HIM for John 3:16 AND for the security of Romans 8:28-35!

 

[BuzzardHut]

It is getting tedious....you say something to explain your position, which is then ignored and you get railed at for something you already rejected or explicitly denied.

Buzz, the treatment you say you received at the hands of "calvies" is reprehensible....but I would not take the worst behaviour of Arminians or Calminians or Calvinists as representative of anything other than the individual that sent it forth. Or would you agree that the worst Christians are to be regarded as representative of the group when seen from without? Of course, some people may think that if you have considerable investment in a particular position then any method to undermine and set the opponent at naught is permitted.

I've never been mistreated but I've seen it done

Instead of offering more reasoning that will only be ignored, twisted or censored, I urge the readers of the thread to go and look at the historical debates over this and thoroughly research it in detail. If you make any progress toward coming across as convincing your post gets deleted anyway.

Maybe because it's not allowed? :

I choose now to take a different tack. If the board rules state hostility to arminianism and calvinism, then I'll argue against arminianism. That all the shooting has been one way so far is just another distasteful aspect of the whole thing....taking an arminian position but not admitting it. Or, manufacturing a new thing, neither fish nor fowl, the Calminian that argues arminianally, claims the benefits of calvinism but is too cowardly to stand in either camp openly but is bold enough to concentrate fire on only one.

Who said you have to talk about either?
It's not about cowardice but cultist.
This is not Calvie/Armie forums so put it to rest.
I urge you to seek a balance, use critical thinking, not pet beliefs, to feel better.

 

[acceptedinthebeloved]

See what I mean?

Is there some measure of predetermination involved in salvation? Of course there is! The Bible says so.

Is there some measure of freewill involved in salvation? Of course there is! The Bible says so.

I do believe in the balance of God's sovereignty AND man's responsibility.



When it comes to "predestination [predestinate/predestinated]" (as given in the Bible - Rom 8 and Eph 1), it has to do with "a certain sure end of the believer"... but does not have to do with some being "chosen" by God for salvation and others "not chosen" by God for salvation.



Here are some quotes from the article Buzzardhut posted above:

[Re: Rom 8] The verse does not say God predestined those He foreknew to be saved. Rather He states that those who are saved are to be conformed to the image of His Son. [believers are predestined "to be conformed to the image of His Son"--it's a sure thing! (1 John 3:2)]

God's election was not which individuals would be saved, but what salvation would bring to those who are saved.

Election rightly refers to the plan of what salvation accomplishes for the believer, not to whom God offers He grace, or whom He withholds it.

[Re: Eph 1] This passage does not say that God chose these to be saved, but rather He chose what they would become when they were saved.

[Re: 1 Peter 2:8-10] This passage is revealing God's plan; not who would be saved or from whom He would withhold His grace.

[Re: 2 Peter 1:10] This passage, as well as others, shows that election is to what God ordained salvation to accomplish and be in the life of the believer. Election is not who God saves by His grace, but what those who believe will experience by receiving God's grace.

 

[dave-o]

Actually it is concluded. For the one that decides to believe the deetermining factor in salvation is the will of man, it is concluded and he argues from that position. For the one that decides to believe salvation is completely due to God, he also has conclusion and represents that position. If you believe the Finneyite and Billy Sundayite position that "God cast a vote, the devil cast a vote, now it's up to you to cast the decider" then that will shape the rest [...]

Where we differ is whether or not the natural man can respond because of his will under bondage to his evil fallen nature. [...]

Actually it ISN'T concluded as this thread clearly proves!

And for the record, where we differ is is that I feel no need to insist that I understand the "determining factors" and refuse to follow the teachings of Calvin, Finney, Sundayites or whoever. THEY obviously didn't understand it either but felt compelled to insist that they did.

 

[mattfivefour]

I am just back from my trip and have not had time to catch up on the board or even think of posting; but this particular thread was brought to my attention by other members and thus I have quickly popped my head in. I am shocked (but not surprised based on experience) at the argumentative and unnecessarily personal tone of some of the posts in this thread. I do not have time to post a response as I have urgent errands that must be done in the next three and a half hours. But I will state this ... categorically and emphatically: the Bible does NOT teach predestination to salvation and predestination to hell.

In both Ephesians and the ninth chapter of Romans Paul is speaking in the context of salvation by choice not salvation by predestination.

The secret to the correct interpretation is in the first five words of Romans 9:29— "For whom God did foreknow". His foreknowledge forms the basis for His acts; they are not predicated on some arbitrary decision flowing from some plan of His own that is too high for us to know. God taught us the principles of justice and righteousness and they flow from His very person. He does not have some different basis of justice than the one He revealed to us. How dare anybody malign Him by suggesting that He does! He requires of us exactly what He does Himself. He is not an unjust God and has revealed that very fact to us using references to justice and righteousness that we ourselves can recognize. God did not indiscriminately love Jacob and hate Esau. It was on the basis of His foreknowledge of their character, their attitude, and their decisions. With Pharaoh, God did not predestine him to be rebellious and contrary to the true God, thus leaving him no choice. He foreknew the stubbornness and rebellion. Stubbornness toward God will always be met by God forcing the issue by providing the setting which will make the heart even harder. In other words, if a person wants to be hard, he will get hardness. So God merely foreknew that that would be the character of Pharaoh and thus used it for His glory. So it is with all of mankind. Those whom God foreknew would accept Him, He brings to the place where they will do so. Those whom He foreknew would reject Him regardless of anything He could do, He allows their hearts to follow their own course and enter circumstances that will make them harder and harder.

This chapter indeed teaches God has mercy on whom He will. But even that is not capricious in our own eyes. God has revealed the ones on whom He will have mercy. They are those who meet His conditions. And His Word tells us that those conditions are that a person be of a humble heart and a contrite spirit. And that they accept His way of salvation alone. That's it.

The predestination spoken of is that those who accept Christ be conformed to His image (Romans 8:29) and also that they be adopted as sons (Ephesians 1:5).

May the fallacious idea that God predestines some for salvation and some for hell be erased once and for all! It is not in the Bible and thus it should not be in our theology.​

 

[dave-o]

The secret to the correct interpretation is in the first five words of Romans 9:29— "For whom God did foreknow". His foreknowledge forms the basis for His acts; they are not predicated on some arbitrary decision flowing from some plan of His own that is too high for us to know.

Arbitrary decision, no. But then there is the age-old question: What about (for sake of argument) those born on the American continent in say the 4th century AD?

Romans 2:14-16
[...]for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, [SUP]15[/SUP] who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) [sup]16[/sup] in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.

What chance did they have? Will God be unjust? NO! But then how? We know that they all sinned but if they had no shot at Grace then what?

 

[mattfivefour]

Bro, as to the hypothetical you offer, my experience is that concern over the eternal fate of those who have had absolutely no opportunity to hear the gospel is a red herring used by man to avoid surrendering himself to Christ. I go back to the Rock on which I stand and on which everything I say about God is based: my faith in Who He is, my absolute and unwavering faith in Him and His perfect character that He has openly revealed to us through His Word. He is no different than He has said.

God is perfect justice and perfect righteousness. We hear testimonies of Muslims in lands that have not had the gospel preached tell of Jesus appearing in visions and dreams and them coming to faith in Him as a result. Could God have done that in the circumstance of which you speak? Of course He could. Did He? The answer to that question—or rather our suppositions regarding what the answer might be—is no basis on which to either build doctrine or interpret Scripture. We can only trust in God's character as He has plainly revealed it to us, and keep ourselves from speculating where His Word is silent.

 

[Elijah's Mantle]

: Yep ( you nailed it Matt (
Glad your back :elmogrin

Ive gathered a whole lot more on the topic

This is right On (

In both Ephesians and the ninth chapter of Romans Paul is speaking in the context of salvation by choice not salvation by predestination.

The secret to the correct interpretation is in the first five words of Romans 9:29— "For whom God did foreknow". His foreknowledge forms the basis for His acts; they are not predicated on some arbitrary decision flowing from some plan of His own that is too high for us to know. God taught us the principles of justice and righteousness and they flow from His very person.

Brother Matt : In one part of the topic it speaks about another something I never heard tell of : about
limited atonement : what exactly is that ?

I don't know about Calvin and Armenia
I just don't know them fellows much at all :

However :elmogrin
Ive pieced together quite a whole lot from the Bible passages ( and its making sense

 

[Elijah's Mantle]

Isaiah 1:9 the book Jesus quoted from the most :elmogrin

(
Isaiah told to them the truth even though the people tried to like appeal the prophecy and in response the prophet Isaiah denounces their pretense of religion and told them it was a aggravation of their sin and literally characterizes their worship as a abomination

There was 2 Israels kinda (
The remnant who served the Lord
and the Israel that rebelled against the Lord

It is the same today in modern church
hearts far from Jesus but running to rebel
and trample the courts :

The Lord of sabaoth is that the Lord of Hosts ? :

 

[dave-o]

Bro, as to the hypothetical you offer, my experience is that concern over the eternal fate of those who have had absolutely no opportunity to hear the gospel is a red herring used by man to avoid surrendering himself to Christ. I go back to the Rock on which I stand and on which everything I say about God is based: my faith in Who He is, my absolute and unwavering faith in Him and His perfect character that He has openly revealed to us through His Word. He is no different than He has said.

God is perfect justice and perfect righteousness. We hear testimonies of Muslims in lands that have not had the gospel preached tell of Jesus appearing in visions and dreams and them coming to faith in Him as a result. Could God have done that in the circumstance of which you speak? Of course He could. Did He?

I agree 100%. But the fact still remains that we don't know what God predestined for those souls. What we DO know is that God is perfect in justice AND that His word doesn't tell us what His plan for people born into those situations was. I don't know for certain but I suspect that answering that question was at least partly responsible for Calvinism and other similar isms.

The answer to that question—or rather our suppositions regarding what the answer might be—is no basis on which to either build doctrine or interpret Scripture. We can only trust in God's character as He has plainly revealed it to us, and keep ourselves from speculating where His Word is silent.

Again, I agree 100%. God is Sovereign and man has choices and speculating on where they meet is fruitless or even dangerous.

 

[Elijah's Mantle]

: OOH OK that makes sense (
God Bless you real Big Micah

 

[micah719]

: OOH OK that makes sense (
God Bless you real Big Micah

He already has, in ways beyond counting.....

 

[BuzzardHut]

Limited atonement means that The Lord Jesus Christ died for His sheep, not for the goats. This means that He did not die for the people that go to hell.

If He had died for all men, then all men would have atonement for sin before God, meaning they could not be justly sent to hell....but we know from Scripture that most men do not receive salvation, therefore their sins were not paid for.

Some will now counter that this limits the worth of His sacrifice. Not so...it is the "Christ died for everyone" supporters that limit His sacrifice by making it ineffectual, since if He died for all yet some still are lost then something else secures salvation.

To be clear: His death paid an infinite price. Anyone coming to Him for atonement of sins, calling on Him as sole Saviour, will be saved. Everyone coming to Him for atonement of sins, calling on Him as sole Saviour, will be saved.

The Gospel must be preached freely to all men, for faith comes by hearing, hearing the word of God, and it is through the foolishness of preaching that God is pleased to save men. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation.

* Jesus died for everyone
o John 1:29, "The next day he saw Jesus coming to him, and said, 'Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!'"
o John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life."
o John 4:42, "and they were saying to the woman, 'It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves and know that this One is indeed the Savior of the world.'"
o 1 Tim. 4:10, "For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers."
o 1 John 2:2, "and He Himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for those of the whole world."
o 1 John 4:14, "And we have beheld and bear witness that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world."

 

[OnceWasLost]

Limited atonement means that The Lord Jesus Christ died for His sheep, not for the goats. This means that He did not die for the people that go to hell.

If He had died for all men, then all men would have atonement for sin before God, meaning they could not be justly sent to hell....but we know from Scripture that most men do not receive salvation, therefore their sins were not paid for.

Some will now counter that this limits the worth of His sacrifice. Not so...it is the "Christ died for everyone" supporters that limit His sacrifice by making it ineffectual, since if He died for all yet some still are lost then something else secures salvation.

To be clear: His death paid an infinite price. Anyone coming to Him for atonement of sins, calling on Him as sole Saviour, will be saved. Everyone coming to Him for atonement of sins, calling on Him as sole Saviour, will be saved.

The Gospel must be preached freely to all men, for faith comes by hearing, hearing the word of God, and it is through the foolishness of preaching that God is pleased to save men. The Gospel is the power of God unto salvation.

I don't take that view at all, I would counter and ask why was God so limiting the number since He chooses after all. That describes the god of islam better, how limited and capricious. In hind sight limited atonement may very well describe the position perfectly, but more as a critique of His choosing, and why it is so limited.

The Case for Unlimited Atonement (by Ron Rhodes)

 

[micah719]

Then why are some not saved?

 

[OnceWasLost]

Then why are some not saved?

You know, but do not accept my answer.

 

[Meg]

The Calvinistic predestination assumption is incorrect, because it takes the subjective "Its all about ME" attitude. When Paul says Salvation is predestined, he is speaking about the GIFT itself being predestined, NOT the individual people who benefit from the gift. Otherwise, 2 Peter 3:9 would be invalid:

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

 

[mattfivefour]

Micah is correct in part in his definition of limited atonement. But there is a much more specific aspect of the doctrine that is missing in that description. Rather than attempt to precis it myself, I shall give you the following two excerpts from a reputable Calvinist site:

Election & Predestination:
"Election is the act of God by which, before the foundation of the world, He chose in Christ those whom He graciously regenerates, saves, and sanctifies. Sovereign election does not contradict or negate the responsibility of man to repent and trust Christ as Savior and Lord. Nevertheless, since sovereign grace includes the means of receiving the gift of salvation as well as the gift itself, sovereign election will result in what God determines. (My note: Notice the slick contradiction between this last sentence and the one immediately before it. This disjunct is necessary in order to square their position with scripture, but is done so slickly that most people do not notice. This type of rhetorical device is used over and over in the exposition of their doctrines. You will see it in the following.) All whom the Father calls to Himself will come in faith and all who come in faith the Father will receive. The unmerited favor that God grants to totally depraved sinners is not related to any initiative of their own part nor to God's anticipation of what they might do by their own will, but is solely of His sovereign grace and mercy."

Limited Atonement:
"It was the purpose of the Father to choose some for salvation, not make salvation a potential for all based on the exercise of free will, which is totally corrupted and depraved by sin. If, then, Christ came to fulfill the purpose of the Father; and it was not the purpose of the Father to elect some to salvation rather than all; then it logically follows that it was not the purpose of Christ to die for all men.

"In the covenant of grace, the Father chose a people, Christ promised to die for them, and the Spirit pledged Himself to apply salvation to their hearts.

"Christ foresaw the suffering and agony that He would have to endure, and yet, He was content with it, for He realized that by His death, everyone for whom He died would be redeemed from sin. Now if Christ died for all men, and some for whom He died ended up going to hell anyway, then Christ could not have foreseen the suffering and agony of His soul and been satisfied. He would have been disappointed because His efforts would not have been sufficient to save everyone for whom He died. Therefore, the atonement Christ made for the sins of His people was limited in purpose; not in its value, but in its purpose, for it was designed for the elect of God.

"One of the first things objectors usually refer to is the use of the word "world" in the Scriptures, and the first passage that is always read is John 3:16: 'For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.' John 3:16 simply states that the design of God's love, that all who believe in Christ should be saved by Him. These believers in their unregenerate state are scattered abroad among the Gentiles as well as among the Jews, and so are fitly described by the word 'world.'"

Now please note that these are not arguments I am bringing forth or positions I am adducing. They are the work of Calvinist authors and are included here only to allow you to see the exact position they take and the use to which they put their doctrines.

The arguments made in the above quoted passages are so intellectually flawed in their logic through Calvin's a priori assumptions that they distort scripture while professing to correctly proclaim it. You can see that what these men have written is all based on human reasoning and the selective use of scripture, and is thus as equally in error as the doctrine of those who hold to Arminian theology. The Calvinist sets up a false dichotomy "between an intensive love that saves its loved ones, and an extensive love that loves everyone in general and saves no one in particular" as one of their apologists has said. This ignores the fact that it was quite possible (not only possible but, from scripture, the plain fact) for Christ to die so that ALL who choose to believe may be saved without taking away their free will in order for them to be saved. The fact that God foreknew who these would be no more forces them to do so than my knowing the sun will rise tomorrow forces it to do so. God foreknew, but it was still they themselves who, when presented with the gospel, were contrite and humble enough to accept it. And no, that does not in any way elevate man or give him whereof to boast. Calvin's problem was, as I have expounded on before, that he thought in human terms and ascribed his experience and conception of human majesty and sovereignty to the eternal God. From that flawed premise he was forced into an eisegetical process from which he arrived at his unscriptural doctrine which has caused untold harm and division in the Body.

Further, the tortured logic that is used by the supporters should convince any person with an open mind of the fallacy of that position. For example, someone above wrote: "it is the 'Christ died for everyone' supporters that limit His sacrifice by making it ineffectual, since if He died for all yet some still are lost then something else secures salvation." To them, it appears obvious, that statement makes sense. Notice the false syllogism: Christ died for all; some are still lost; therefore salvation must be the result of something else. This is termed an exclusive logical disjunction and has resulted in the false premise because it assumes as foundational propositions that either one or the other premise must be true but not both. And so, as we attempt to follow and correct the convolutions of this false doctrine, we almost inevitably disappear down the rabbit hole into which these discussions typically devolve. We find we have engaged in a vain disputation.

Let us leave this foolish argument aside and preach the gospel to ALL creatures knowing that ALL creatures have the potential to accept this great and free salvation we proffer on behalf of the Master who sent us out to do this work of His. And I highly encourage everyone who is reading in this thread to take advantage of the link to Proportion Theology given by one of our chief administrators and founders, Buzzardhut, in an earlier post. It is the ONLY doctrinal position that includes ALL scripture on the subject and does not necessitate the redefinition of terms or any of the other methods of trying to explain away the verses that do not fit with the position taken by one side or the other. It fulfills the basic requirement of good hermeneutics; whereas both Calvinism and Arminianism and the doctrines they spawned fail on that count.

 

[micah719]

Joh 10:1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
Joh 10:2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
Joh 10:3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
Joh 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
Joh 10:5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
Joh 10:6 This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.
Joh 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
Joh 10:8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
Joh 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
Joh 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
Joh 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.
Joh 10:12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.
Joh 10:13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.
Joh 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
Joh 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.
Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
Joh 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
Joh 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.
Joh 10:19 There was a division therefore again among the Jews for these sayings.
Joh 10:20 And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad; why hear ye him?
Joh 10:21 Others said, These are not the words of him that hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?
Joh 10:22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication, and it was winter.
Joh 10:23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.
Joh 10:24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
Joh 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
Joh 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
Joh 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
Joh 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
Joh 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
Joh 10:30 I and my Father are one.
Joh 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
Joh 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
Joh 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Joh 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Joh 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
Joh 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
Joh 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
Joh 10:39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,
Joh 10:40 And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode.
Joh 10:41 And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true.
Joh 10:42 And many believed on him there.

 

[Chris]

Is Salvation Our Choice Or God’s? | GraceThruFaith

Is Salvation Our Choice Or God’s?

Q. How can we reconcile the idea that people are chosen by God and have no ability to choose God with the idea of eternal punishment for not choosing God? Put another way, how can unbelievers be punished for something they are incapable of believing? Wouldn’t this be like destroying a robot designed to make cars because it has failed to bake you some cookies?

A. In my opinion this is the great Achilles heel of the predestination view. In order to accept it you have to believe that God created some of His children specifically to fuel the fires of hell. It’s totally inconsistent with His character, as well as being a contradiction of 2 Peter 3:9 which says the Lord doesn’t want that any should perish, but that all would come to repentance.

Both the Old Testament (Joel 2:32) and the New (Romans 10:13) say that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved. Are we to believe that God created some without the ability to do this, and then condemns them to eternal punishment because of that inability? I don’t buy it.